Police in Manchester have concluded that the explosive device he used was the design of a skilled bomb-maker, too valuable to expend on a suicide mission. It had a back-up means of detonation and seems to have been similar in design to those used by two IS-inspired suicide-bombers in Brussels last year.

I am confused, just wondering if anyone can spot and point out what I am missing. On the one hand this bomb was too valuable to be used by a suicide bomber, but is similar to that used by others, due presumably to the back up.

I am having trouble getting my mind around this seeming contradiction.

Can anyone explain it another way?

For transparency, and please without diverting and going down the road viewing always goes on here, but to help you understand why these things matter to me.

In addition to having studied terrorism and counter terrorism on a Georgetown university mooc, I believe that I have preempted a terrorist plot in the past (well two possibly). Clearly I will most likely never know if I did or not, but one did come with timely independent confirming evidence from two other viewers on a different project (one virtually named the precise location while the other was seeing an imminent 911 event which is what I viewed in a lot of detail), one is very well regarded which was enough to get me to speak up in advance (until that point I had assumed that I was just imagining it). Spooks have access to those details on fb and through my email (to US State department).

Clearly (even if with those two events I was simply imagining it all) if I was able to adapt what I have already shown can be done to help with preempting terrorist atrocities, that would be a valuable skill. Hence I could use understanding the above seeming contradiction.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts (on the economist paragraph not on viewing).

Apologies again, I should have put the above here, I didn't as it was a separate issue in my own mind, and I just typed as I was thinking about it. Anyhow as Jibberjim has kindly come to my rescue and pointed out the obvious (that I couldn't see!) it is now resolved.

GrahamO was clearly getting excited until Jorgan pipped him at the post.

Sloggers if you can remote view a terrorist atrocity can you post it on here so I can avoid the area. much thanks

you see Hammerer, it is this sort of sarcasm than stop people doing such things.

While I have no desire to "go there" again, I will quote what I said earlier

Quote:

For transparency, and please without diverting and going down the road viewing always goes on here, but to help you understand why these things matter to me.

In addition to having studied terrorism and counter terrorism on a Georgetown university mooc, I believe that I have preempted a terrorist plot in the past (well two possibly). Clearly I will most likely never know if I did or not, but one did come with timely independent confirming evidence from two other viewers on a different project (one virtually named the precise location while the other was seeing an imminent 911 event which is what I viewed in a lot of detail), one is very well regarded which was enough to get me to speak up in advance (until that point I had assumed that I was just imagining it). Spooks have access to those details on fb and through my email (to US State department).

Clearly (even if with those two events I was simply imagining it all) if I was able to adapt what I have already shown can be done to help with preempting terrorist atrocities, that would be a valuable skill.

Now Hammerer, please give it a break. Think what you like of me, but ripping the piss only stops people with such (generally underdeveloped due to such ridicule) skills using them to your benefit.

I would bet money on me having predicted and forewarned on a major multiple device terrorist attack on a major American city last Labour Day. It has independent supporting 'evidence' (which I do use loosely but it was independent and timely) But the only people who could confirm or deny aren't likely to tell me.

Anyhow Hammerer, can you please just let it be. Should I come up with a conceptual solution that could work in practice (i.e. With intent not by accident) I will publish it. Can we please let harmony prevail here.

FatPom, don't worry about it. But thanks.

Last edited by SloggingScotsman on Fri May 26, 2017 3:04 pm; edited 1 time in total